REVIEW 1 cited by
Social bots sour activist sentiment without eroding engagement
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Social bots sour activist sentiment without eroding engagement
read the original abstract
Social media platforms have witnessed a substantial increase in social bot activity, significantly affecting online discourse. Our study explores the dynamic nature of bot engagement related to Extinction Rebellion climate change protests from 18 November 2019 to 10 December 2019. We find that bots exert a greater influence on human behavior than vice versa during heated online periods. To assess the causal impact of human-bot communication, we compared communication histories between human users who directly interacted with bots and matched human users who did not. Our findings demonstrate a consistent negative impact of bot interactions on subsequent human sentiment, with exposed users displaying significantly more negative sentiment than their counterparts. Furthermore, the nature of bot interaction influences human tweeting activity and the sentiment towards protests. Political astroturfing bots increase activity, whereas other bots decrease it. Sentiment changes towards protests depend on the user's original support level, indicating targeted manipulation. However, bot interactions do not change activists' engagement towards protests. Despite the seemingly minor impact of individual bot encounters, the cumulative effect is profound due to the large volume of bot communication. Our findings underscore the importance of unrestricted access to social media data for studying the prevalence and influence of social bots, as with new technological advancements distinguishing between bots and humans becomes nearly impossible.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Automated versus Human Engagement: Mapping Cognitive Bias Triggers in Online Discourse
Computational framework detects eight cognitive bias triggers in 3.5M COVID posts, finding bots deploy them more than humans with source-dependent engagement effects and reduced returns from multiple triggers in bot posts.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.